This won’t come as much of a surprise to our European visitors, but America is really, really conservative.

I mean, sure, there is such a thing as American liberalism, but even that skews to the right. American liberals want to change things, sure, but their idea of radical change is, you know, maybe be polite to each other? And possibly some tax dollars should fund some government programs, or something?

All of which is enough to drive the conservative end of our spectrum into a frothing frenzy, because the conservative end of our spectrum is somewhere to the right of Darth Vader. But even they talk about politeness and government spending.

Sometimes, if there weren’t a little (R.) or (D.) after a politician’s name it would be difficult to tell the two ideologies apart, and sometimes even then it is still difficult.

Because American politics is just very, very weird and it always has been.

I always promised myself that I would not use A+ as a political platform, and I am loathe to do it now. But I want to talk about something that actually connects in a very real way with the reason for A+’s existence.

Positivity is right there in our name. A+ was a place for positive thinking, asexual thinking, and thinking positively about sex and sexuality. We were founded as a place to talk about what does and doesn’t interest us, and why that might be. We were founded to listen to the observations of others, and to respectfully hear them and interact with them. We were meant to be a haven of free thought and free speech, a platform on which people from every walk of life or persuasion could come together and discuss what sexuality means and to celebrate the fact that there are many, many different ways to approach life, love and the pursuit of happiness. We were to be a place free from recrimination, a place where everybody could and should feel welcomed.

And recently a certain rhetoric has entered the American lexicon that isn’t just wrong, it is duplicitous and evil. A+ can’t just sit back and say nothing on the subject and still consider itself to be open and welcoming. I can’t just sit back and say nothing. So, I’m going to use this site as a place to make a personal statement, and also reiterate a central tenant upon which this site was founded:

Bigotry, of any kind, is wrong.

And the recent spate of so-called “Religious Freedom” laws ain’t nothing but bigotry with a nice-sounding name.

Now, whoa, whoa, wait! Was does "religious freedom" have to do with sexuality and asexuality?

Well, in the guise of “protecting freedom” states in the union have been codifying a right to discriminate against those with whom they disagree. Specifically, those who might be gay, or transgendered. This is not only undemocratic, it is the opposite of freedom and the opposite of religion.

For those of you who might have missed the memo, religious freedom laws are designed to keep those with sincerely held religious beliefs from being forced to observe anti-discrimination laws, as if not being mean to another human being for abstract and arbitrary reasons is the kind of thing that anyone should ever need to be “forced” to do. Currently, a staggering 21 states have some form of these laws which codify a lack of respect for someone else's rights under the guise of protecting religion -- a concept with is already protected by the central law of the land. Being gay or transgendered, however, isn't.

It is a shame that we apparently still need, even in this age of science fiction setting 2016, to remind certain people that is isn’t okay to discriminate. But these laws have only gone to show that not only are anti-discrimination laws still necessary, we apparently need to remind some people what discrimination actually is.

Demanding to see proof of gender before allowing another person to go potty is discriminatory. Demanding that someone marry the gender you think is acceptable before you will allow them into your place of business is discriminatory. Firing someone because of what they do with their genitalia with another, consenting adult on their own time is discriminatory.

Someone else merely existing and expecting you to treat them with dignity and respect is not discriminatory. It doesn’t matter how florid your prose gets, or how pretty your words are: if they place a burden on someone else to refrain from offending your sensibilities, what you are doing is the opposite of freedom and it is wrong.

Not only is it wrong, it is disingenuous and it is flat-out lying in an attempt to get your own way. It is self-centered, selfish and borderline sociopathic.

If you are genuinely afraid of the concept of a transgendered person entering the same bathroom as you, first of all, I'm embarrassed for you, because dollars to donuts, it has already happened and the skies were not rent in twain and you felt no disturbance in the force. Second of all, you are placing your own concerns before anyone else’s, and that is explicitly anti-Christian. If you are worried that having to acknowledge someone else’s chosen partner for fear of betraying your principals, you already have betrayed them.

In a very real sense, these laws are not only an attack on vulnerable members of society, they are also a very real attack of the very concept of the religion they are purported to protect.

They are wrong thinking, wrong minded and they have no place in a mature society.

A+’s position is simply this: everyone, live your lives, enjoy your lives and worry about your owned damned selves. If there truly is a God, she will sort all of this out in her own time. And if you trust in the idea so much, you should believe that more than I do. Because my idea of a god would have already jumped down your collective throats for being such bigots in the first place.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Having grown up in Texas, I’ve known my fair share of bigots and none of them –- not a single, solitary one –- are “bigots”. It is a very easy trap to fall into. Other people are bigots. I just have “sincerely held beliefs.” Congratulations. You just missed the point.

Let me put this another way: we all have a strong desire to have spaces wherein we feel safe and in which we can interact with those who are like us. This is inherently human, and there is nothing wrong with it.

But, think for a moment about what the phrase "people like us" really means to you. Does it mean white people? Christian people? Straight people? Asexual people? Because if it means anything other than “living and breathing human person”, you are a bigot.

What makes all of this so distressing, is that I have been cornered into making just such a statement before. In an episode that went down in AVEN history as “The Eye of Sauron Announcement”, the admod team posted a banner over every page of that site with a warning that any discriminatory speech –- including against sexuals –- would not be tolerated.

The backlash was fierce and immediate. And, naturally, no one who objected was in any way against sexual people, or any other kind of person, but how dare we? We dared because it was going on, right on those pages, and it sounded remarkably similar to what I’m hearing now from apologists for these laws.

“Why do those people have to go on about it?”

“Why can’t they just keep their mouths shut?”

“Why can’t they just let me be?”

“I have nothing against them, but I don’t want to have to hear about it!”

Here’s a newsflash for everyone: sexuality is an important thing. It is a very deep part of what makes a person a person. It is so deeply ingrained into our beings that it is a major thing that defines us.

We can no more be silent about it, or protect others from the reality of it than we can stop breathing, or eating.

And, yes, this extends to asexuality, too. It defines us, it puts our experiences in perspective. No, it is not everything about us. It might not even be the most important thing about us. But it is a very fundamental part of us.

Demanding that a sexual person just shut up about what gives their lives drive and meaning is simply not a realistic thing. Demanding that the transgendered just get over it (while demanding I.D. at the bathroom door) is also not realistic. Expecting a gay couple to continue to use the euphemistic phrases for their “special friends” until the end of time is just stupid.

The only kind of freedom is the ability to live one’s life without someone else demanding that their life is somehow more important than your honesty. Freedom is only freedom if applied to everyone, equally.

Thankfully, the majority of asexuals won't be harrassed, or even noticed, by the right-wing religious zealots, but there are some exceptions, especially when an asexual is also transgendered or homo-romantic. Religion is used by bigots as an excuse to justify deliberate persecution, and there is no question whatsoever about the fact that that is EXACTLY what is happening.

They can't actually justify their discriminatory practices by pointing at the Bible, because if they were HONESTLY trying to follow its precepts then they would have to begin by refusing to do business with anybody who has been divorced and re-married. Oh . . . but wait! There are a LOT of those people, so that might actually affect the almighty profit margin. It's much safer to target small minorities who don't have enough power to retaliate in any meaningful way. So, take away the smokescreen called religion and see what's REALLY happening: the bigots want to feel superior without risking any measurable financial damage or legal repercussion. That's it.

People will use ANY excuse to make themselves feel that they are more worthy than someone else, and organized religion is just one of the many kinds of crowd manipulations that readily tap into that weakness. It's no different from any other "ism" in this way. Deism, patriotism, nationalism, feminism, veganism, conservatism, liberalism . . .. the list goes on and on. "Isms" are belief systems that separate people into "us versus them" None of us are immune to them, but being aware of this human weakness is a first step toward resisting its influence.After all, we're no better than any other animal when it comes to ganging up on outsiders and ostracizing them, driving them away, or, in extreme cases, even killing them. What's worse: if humans can't find any real outsiders they will use "isms" to manufacture some.

Now . . . are you wondering what this has to do with being positive about asexuality?

Me too. But asexuals are a VERY small minority, and therefore we have no significance at all from a financial or political perspective. That's a risky place to be, and we should keep that in mind.If we are to have even the slightest chance of being heard and respected then we have to band together, not divide ourselves into ever smaller groups by embracing elitism, and rejecting any who don't fit our own, more perfected definition of asexuality.

Our goal at Apositive is to be welcoming to ALL others who are interested in asexuality, asexual or not, even those with whom we disagree, because we want to be united, not divided. We don't have to be exactly alike in order to work together toward a common goal, and that's A Positive.

Heh. I, myself, am not quite as anti-religion as my good lady wife, but this doesn't mean that I disagree with her.

What does my post have to do with asexuality?

I'll be getting to that later. Because I do have a point (and Nancy managed to touch on it quite well, although I haven't really discussed it with her, as yet).

For the record, I don't necessarily intend for this blog to be solely related to asexuality. I fully intend to use it to touch on subjects that might not, at first, seem related to our stated purpose. But, again, there is a reason for that.

Firstly, I have long maintained that asexuality has a lot to say on the subject of sex and sexual politics. Removed from the immediacy of the issues, I have often managed to get others to blink and look at their problems in a different light.

Doubt if that will happen in the current case, as hate is simply hate.

And, secondly, well, we can't be all asexuality all the time. For the good of the site, it is sometimes useful to open up the discussion to other topics and other ideas.

Appropos of nothing, this is not my only blog. Having been encouraged for years to start a film-themed blog, I did so last month. I then got an idea for a post here, and without even trying, I found myself going from zero blogs to two in a matter of weeks.

Which is just fine. If I weren't having fun doing it, I wouldn't bother.

But, I fully intend to cross-post with my other blog, if I feel that it is in any way related to our subject.

So, whereas I probably won't be posting my thoughts on Xanadu around here (you're welcome, by the way), I likely will cross post my upcoming article on The Bride of Frankenstein, not because it has anything to do with asexuality, but because it does have something to do with the concept of sexuality in general and, besides, I think some of you might be interested.

This is part discussion of asexuality, part statement of purpose, part just wanting to start conversations, part just wanting to keep the portal page updated so we don't look like a dead site.

As I stated ages and eons ago: I have no idea what I'm doing. Which is half the fun. It's difficult to be predictable if you aren't bothering to look for a path.

Incidentally, I am certainly open to the idea of guest bloggers, as well. So, there's that, too.

Where I have worries is where those...who do tend to be lgbt...use the ..you are a religious zealot because your way if thinking is not the same as mine. The exact same thing they accuse the religious person of.

The trouble with "rights" is they can only happen by taking away..in part or fully...another persons "rights"

also minorities still haven't got the hang of minorities....no rules will ever be 100% happyness for everyone..humans are arses..so you pick, choose, define and work on laws that work for the majority and for the majority of the time

I absolutely assure you that whilst some may think the above persecutes minorities...if the majority was lgbt and the minority wasn't..the lgbt would not have an issue with it..it's how humans get things done.

We see some say..you are a religious zealot...but when you look at the argument what they are actually saying is like homophobe, transphobe, racist etc..they are using those terms to shut others down...surely religious people are entitled to a view too?

when you confuse...you disagree with me and that is your entitled opinion with, you do not agree with me and it's because your religious then I would suggest the biggotry is not on the side some may think...intolerance is on the rise...but mostly from minorities shouting at people saying that unless we agree with them and everything they do...then we are bigotted, racist, transphobic, islamaphobic etc....which of course mostly is not the case...it's just people disagreeing with them.

KAW143 wrote:This won’t come as much of a surprise to our European visitors, but America is really, really conservative.

I mean, sure, there is such a thing as American liberalism, but even that skews to the right. American liberals want to change things, sure, but their idea of radical change is, you know, maybe be polite to each other? And possibly some tax dollars should fund some government programs, or something?

I'm European and honestly I can't really agree.

What is largely true is that mainstream US politics does (or at least traditionally did) go from centre right to extreme right (by European standards). A Clinton or an Obama would probably be considered a moderate conservative in the UK; perhaps even further right on the continent. However even this may be changing as the relative success of Sanders shows. It's hard to imagine a self-described "democratic socialist" doing as well in the America of even a couple decades ago.

Extreme leftism is well and alive in America though. One word: universities... (And it's becoming the same in most of the Western world I think.) Whether this will have a trickle (up? down? sideways?) effect into mainstream politics as students graduate and move on remains to be seen.

It isn't a new thing that people in the unis are more radical (one way or the other). It have been that since the 1800's when people met at cafes to discuss social and political change. It is usual that younger people are much more radical, and established ones are much more moderate. It is also usual that it is the most radical ones that are the most vocal ones, while it is the moderate ones that are the quiet ones as they don't feel this desire to say everything they feel to everyone.

Well if there is one thing worse than bigotry it is white college educated liberals and their spiel and ideology that only replaced outright racism with degree discrimination, the war on crime, anti-welfare sentiment and other code words in the post-racial fantasy world. If someone's family is continually robbed over centuries and forced to compete with the robbers, they need economic and other restitution not the lame politically correct ideology of the white liberal which just reinforces white privilege in a post-racial disguise. For example, here are the problems that black Civil Rights leaders had with white liberals in the past:

Martin Luther King wrote:[url=Letter from a Birmingham Jail]https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html[/url]

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

Anyway politically correct jargon is just a class signifier, minority communities in the USA and the rest of the world, tend to be some of the least politically correct. Much fewer of them(save especially East Asians who I especially don't think should not qualify as people of color since they have even higher incomes than entrenched whites) It is better that people be open with their biases instead of the snotty under the table hiding that college educated liberals engender. For example thanks to all this liberal bullshit American whites actually think they are the biggest victims of racism: http://www.ibtimes.com/racism-america-w ... ds-2393588

I must say I am quite concerned with how social progress is going these days. These days, it's becoming more and more the social norm to be a bigot and that (ideally) treating people more or less the same regardless of arbitrary social labels. I admit, I have quite the issues with dealing with my own bigotry, esp. in my own head. Still, I do like to try and fight it and not succumb to it. Though, I have little confident retorts to say back to the bigots for why I try treat people more or less the same (based on certain things), other than I find it the right thing to do and that as creatures of potentially higher thought, we can try and aim for what I want. However, as I'm an easily impressionable, idiotic, insular, etc. person, it can be a challenge at many times.